Do you really mean 'ostensibly' there? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_a... doesn't list it as a cause. Maybe you mean it was an indirect underlying cause behind the more commonly stated causes? In which case that's not the ostensible cause - it's the opposite of ostensible!
I mean if you believe the videos of Bin Laden taking credit for 9/11 weren’t faked by the government, he cites anger with U.S. policy on Israel and climate change as the two things he was most upset about with the U.S.
If you think that video wasn't faked as you say that the other causes are the ostensible ones and this is the genuine cause. You've got the meaning of 'ostensible' the wrong way around.
I remember seeing a white paper (from some government agency or the RAND institute) back in the 90's (actually probably learned about in some NPR interview) that predicted wars over water starting around the point we are now (approaching 2020). I've seen some news reports that this is already happening. One example being tensions/conflict between Israel and Lebanon. News reports generally treat it as an ideological conflict but this argues looking at the material basis for the conflict.
Another lesser example being legal/political wrangling here in western US among states over Colorado River rights.
It'd be interesting to dig up some of those white papers / predictions and see how credible accurate their predictions like this were.
Not exactly the same thing as climate change but certainly connected.
The way I see it is that they would have a much better chance of finding a way to overcome these ideological/historical differences through trade if they weren't constantly being exacerbated by these more basic economic/environmental issues.
The Colorado River rights problems are exactly why "it could happen in the US too" and it isn't just an "international problem" to US audiences. I wouldn't call it a "lesser example" because mini wars (especially if you count industrial sabotage) have been fought over it in the past, and sure California, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico are friends right now, but given a few more years of droughts in the US southwest and that is likely to change.
Somewhere I’ve read California would like to pipe Great Lakes water into the state... but the Great Lakes states entered into a compact with Canada to make it difficult...
The idea has been kicked around for decades, but now even some notable scientists have warmed up to the idea.
I know that you’re saying but the Great Lakes basin is not arid like the Aral Sea -whose tributaries were tapped for irrigation. The Great Lakes “overflow” into the st Lawrence which discharges about 7000 m3/sec. at the Ontario outflow.
If California gets great lakes water, every single southwestern state will also ask for it. The intelligent solution is "dont build megacities in the middle of the desert beyond their ability to sustain themselves" rather than "lets invest tons of money into piping fresh water several thousand miles and not address the initial root cause"
Whether people live in CA of the Midwest, water will be consumed. They might even consume less in the arid areas if water has rationing policies. The main obstacle would be infrastructure but it’s not too complicated. It would need lots of pumps to get over the Rockies but it’s doable.
> I imagine some revenue sharing scheme could entice some of the states to send some water.
No need, there is a loophole. Bottled water companies are allowed to pull as much water from the watershed as they want and export it. Michigan charges a $200 per year permit fee. The water bottles are limited in size to be less than 5.7 gallons (21.5 liters).
Nestle bottles 5+ million bottles of water per day and sends it where ever they choose.
Someone could build a railroad loop at the edge of the watershed and have a circular train with millions of 5.7 gallon containers. Fill them up on one side, dump them into a pipeline system on the other. $200 per year.
> But not everyone’s land in the Fergana Valley is fertile. Overuse of water in upstream communities often leaves those downstream parched.
About 1,400 cubic meters of water is supposed to flow along Kok Tal’s irrigation canal each day, yet only half that volume emerges from the neighboring village – an isolated stretch of Uzbekistan surrounded by Kyrgyz territory.
“During the summer time, there are daily conflicts over irrigation water,” said Tynar Musabaev, executive director of the Central Asian Alliance for Water. “They are usually between villages, sometimes inter-ethnic and people have killed each other over irrigation water.”
One of the several reasons for Israel occupying Golan Heights was denying Syria access to Sea of Galilee which is a major supply of freshwater. Because of this, I regard that the first wars over water have already been fought, if not entirely for that reason, but as part of the motivation for actions. We are going to see more in the future for sure.
France is good example of how governments use the concept of climate change to increase taxes and government control over the masses, and how the masses rebel against those attempts to usurp more and more money and control.
And it's pretty straightforward: as water, arable land and other resources become scarcer, then groups facing severe shortages will fight over the leftover resources.
It's hardly a consensus. There is plenty of research suggesting climate change has been a factor in conflicts even now, such as in the Syrian civil war:
> The conclusion: climate has already increased the risk of armed conflict, but the effect is small relative to the effects of other factors such as unexpected economic events and scarcity of natural resources such as food.
The risk posed by climate change is that it will majorly disrupt economies and access to food and water. (Think widespread drought and famine). I find it strange that these experts draw a distinction between these factors.
Does anybody have a link to the full article? The introduction paragraphs sound like the issues is more about Islamic extremism than climate change. How does the article attempt to link these two concepts?
It's impossible to tell what the impact of climate change will be overall. Maybe more wars, but maybe less wars...
Maybe food will be less scarce... Maybe Congo will have more wars, but maybe by some random fashion, climate change will prevent some kind of world war iii.
Climate change is a disaster for the fauna and flora of the world. It will displace a lot of people. But anything more complex is impossible to say.
> Climate change is a disaster for the fauna and flora of the world.
It's a disaster for the current flora and fauna, and social structures of the world. Something will follow, but on very different terms than what we have been used to.
To hazard a guess, the bias will be toward flora and fauna (including people) fighting to get in to, and defend shrinking habitable zones.
There is a theory that the desertification of the ancient Fertile Crescent, and subsequent dispersal of agricultural and pastoral societies and people, was the result of the their intense farming in a fragile environment.
Those people had a place to run to and carry on (the entire unknown-to-them world). No such escape hatch for us.
Wrong. Men also do the same. Have you heard of the elements? Also can you take your cultural allergies elsewhere or apply them accordingly. This is climate change
Climate change as stated is not of course the main cause of wars, but its increasingly becoming one. Fighting for resources is inevitable, even between sages conflict would arise on who is entitled to what. Wait to see these lunatic world leaders shifting their starvation from oil to water. As mentioned it's already happening. To maximize the chaos politicians play this as a card for their agenda, as scarcity reigns, they will use it to scrap vote. There was an article mentioned earlier on HN about a city in India that has completely ran out of drinkable water. I'd say things look pretty grim, even for the optimist.
38 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 115 ms ] threadhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/29/osama-bi...
Another lesser example being legal/political wrangling here in western US among states over Colorado River rights.
It'd be interesting to dig up some of those white papers / predictions and see how credible accurate their predictions like this were.
Not exactly the same thing as climate change but certainly connected.
The idea has been kicked around for decades, but now even some notable scientists have warmed up to the idea.
Even if parts of Calif are a desert, they become a fertile deserts with water.
I imagine some revenue sharing scheme could entice some of the states to send some water.
People can't drink money.
No need, there is a loophole. Bottled water companies are allowed to pull as much water from the watershed as they want and export it. Michigan charges a $200 per year permit fee. The water bottles are limited in size to be less than 5.7 gallons (21.5 liters).
Nestle bottles 5+ million bottles of water per day and sends it where ever they choose.
Someone could build a railroad loop at the edge of the watershed and have a circular train with millions of 5.7 gallon containers. Fill them up on one side, dump them into a pipeline system on the other. $200 per year.
> But not everyone’s land in the Fergana Valley is fertile. Overuse of water in upstream communities often leaves those downstream parched.
About 1,400 cubic meters of water is supposed to flow along Kok Tal’s irrigation canal each day, yet only half that volume emerges from the neighboring village – an isolated stretch of Uzbekistan surrounded by Kyrgyz territory.
“During the summer time, there are daily conflicts over irrigation water,” said Tynar Musabaev, executive director of the Central Asian Alliance for Water. “They are usually between villages, sometimes inter-ethnic and people have killed each other over irrigation water.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kyrgyzstan-water-climatec...
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37755985
And it's pretty straightforward: as water, arable land and other resources become scarcer, then groups facing severe shortages will fight over the leftover resources.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01830-2
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-0005...
The Pentagon also has reports on climate change as national security risk.
The risk posed by climate change is that it will majorly disrupt economies and access to food and water. (Think widespread drought and famine). I find it strange that these experts draw a distinction between these factors.
Maybe food will be less scarce... Maybe Congo will have more wars, but maybe by some random fashion, climate change will prevent some kind of world war iii.
Climate change is a disaster for the fauna and flora of the world. It will displace a lot of people. But anything more complex is impossible to say.
It's a disaster for the current flora and fauna, and social structures of the world. Something will follow, but on very different terms than what we have been used to.
To hazard a guess, the bias will be toward flora and fauna (including people) fighting to get in to, and defend shrinking habitable zones.
There is a theory that the desertification of the ancient Fertile Crescent, and subsequent dispersal of agricultural and pastoral societies and people, was the result of the their intense farming in a fragile environment.
Those people had a place to run to and carry on (the entire unknown-to-them world). No such escape hatch for us.
Do you consider humans to be fauna?